Widow
Posted: Thu 24 October, 2013 Filed under: 1BEM, Cynicism, Daily Mail, Health, Media, News, People, Stupidity, Weirdness Leave a comment »This year’s symptom of the media Silly Season appears to be the “False Widow” spider, which is the UK’s most venomous spider, but is also nowhere near as poisonous/bad/evil as it’s been portrayed, along with the resultant hysteria.
For whatever reason though, it’s been all over the news, with hysterical coverage about people who’ve been bitten “and nearly died“. Of course, it’s hard to gauge how near-to-death anyone was when they actually survived – I could say I “nearly died” anytime I cough, sneeze, or have a particularly strenuous dump.
The latest ridiculously hysterical reaction was the closure of a school in the Forest of Dean because of ‘an infestation’ of false widows (for fuck’s sake)
Now yes, I’m quite sure the bite hurts – and that there are a tiny minority of people who react badly to said bites, in the same way that there’s a small selection of people who react badly to wasp stings, peanuts etc. But it’s a tiny minority who get bitten at all (most just introduce spider to literature anyway) and an even tinier minority therein who react in such a way. But if you read the media, they’re everywhere, and everyone’s being bitten.
I know, I know, it’s always been thus with the media – compare any hysterical theme story with people you actually know, and you’ll find that most of them are stories that only happen to a tiny minority. Supposedly it’s that fact that makes the stories “news”, but that hype then blows it all out of proportion/sanity, leaving idiots people with the impression it’s happening everywhere.
Sometimes I wish the media would just shut the fuck up about stupid hype-ridden hyperbolic stories, and (in an ideal world) allow people to get on with their lives without this hysterical bullshit constantly going on.
Big Screen
Posted: Tue 15 October, 2013 Filed under: Domestic, People, Technology, Television 3 Comments »An email went round work yesterday, that Costco have a 65″ TV on a special deal for £2,000. (I don’t know why we get these emails, but hey ho)
I’m just gobsmacked by that. A 65-inch screen – that’s nearly five-and-a-half feet of diagonal screen-size!
I honestly don’t get the desire/need for these super-large screens. Admittedly some of that is due to the fact I live in a tiny house where something that size would take up about two-thirds of the available wall space, but I still don’t get the appeal, the way that TVs now seem to dominate living space.
I used to have a big-ass wide-screen TV, although that was pre-flatscreens, and was a huge lump of Sony Trinitron that took two people to lift it. Even that though was only about a 36 or 38″ screen – this advertised one would be nearly twice that in size.
Fair play, other people seem to want TVs this size – it’s just not something I aspire to own, and I can certainly think of many better things to spend £2,000 on.
Legally Dead
Posted: Fri 11 October, 2013 Filed under: Geeky, Ideas, Legal, News, People, Thoughts, Writing 1 Comment »The BBC today has a fantastic story about Donald Miller, an American man who had disappeared for 8 years, was declared legally dead in 1994, then reappeared in 2005, having been drifting and moving from place to place since 1986.
Because he’d been declared legally dead, his ‘widow’ was given his Social Security death benefits, so when he reappeared – and I’m reading between the lines a little – it looks like they’ve tried to claim that back.
However, because he’s been ‘dead’ so long, that decision can’t be resolved or overturned. Apparently it can be within three years (which is pretty mind-boggling in itself) but not after 19 years – unsurprisingly.
What this means is that Donald Miller remains legally dead.
Of course, my mind went off on a tangent at that point, and thought about how cool this actually is. (in some ways) I wonder what would happen if (for example) he robbed a bank. Could a legally-dead person be charged with a crime? Could it go to court? I suspect not. Even fingerprint checks would – as I understand it – come back as being those of a dead person. And what happens when he does actually die?
It’s all a very odd story, based around odd tenets of law. And I suspect we haven’t heard the last of it.
CEOP and NCA
Posted: Thu 10 October, 2013 Filed under: Cynicism, People, Security, Thoughts 1 Comment »I see that with the introduction of the new National Crime Agency (whose name sounds more like a criminal organisation, similar to Murder, Inc., than a law-enforcement one – you’d have thought National Crime Prevention Agency would’ve been a better choice) they’ve also wrapped up CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection) into it as well.
I’ve always had my doubts about the use of CEOP as anything except propaganda. (and I’ve said so before) I don’t doubt that there is such a thing as child pornography, nor that abuse happens, that it’s more prevalent (or at least more reported on) now, and that t’internet has made things easier for paedophiles and abusers to both find victims and distribute those images. (And on a related subject, I also just read this story from the Guardian, and Bloody Hell)
But – ah, but – I do doubt that the methods for distribution of those images include things like Facebook and Twitter. I do doubt that ‘abuse’ on social media is as prevalent as CEOP makes out. The stats they release every quarter always make me think that they’re more about justifying their own existence, as do most of their stories, press releases and news soundbites. Yes, there should be an area of Policing and/or Law Enforcement that deals with these issues – but in my opinion it should be a part of standard policing, similar to New York’s Special Victims Unit (yes, it’s real, not just part of a TV Series mythology)
I’d rather see specialists per force – with the ability to communicate and operate between forces – than an agency that works so hard to justify its own existence.
Or of course, I could be being wholly cynical and uninformed about the entire thing. Who knows?
Tenancies and Tenants
Posted: Wed 9 October, 2013 Filed under: Domestic, Housing, People, Thoughts 1 Comment »I wrote on Monday about the fact I’ve been able to renew my tenancy with the current place for another year, and how easy all of that process has been.
At the same time, another semi-friend, an ex-colleague, has been having a nightmare of a time with her new tenancy – having paid for references etc., the landlord has then announced that he’s putting the house on the market to sell it. She hasn’t paid the deposit etc., so she hasn’t got a leg to stand on, and all told it’s a pretty shitty situation.
But. Ah, but.
In the two-ish years I’ve known her, this is her third or fourth move. As regular readers know, I’d never snark on someone for moving a lot – my own current record of eight moves in ten years goes some way to illustrating why – but in her case, and in each case, she’s moved because there’s been something major wrong with the place she’s living. White goods haven’t been working properly, maintenance hasn’t been great, bad neighbours, bad landlords – indeed, she’s taking her current landlord through the Housing Ombudsman, which I didn’t even know existed. She’s also taken neighbours at the current place to court for some reason or other.
To my mind – and in my experience – when someone always has problems with something, you sometimes have to sit back and look at the common factors. In this case, we’re talking about four or five different landlords, and different properties, all of which are supposedly bad. But what’re the odds?
I’ve been renting places for *cough* twenty-plus years, and I’ve never had a landlord or property that bad. Ever. My brother’s in a similar position, having rented places for a fair old number of years as well. We’ve certainly both had smaller issues with places, or with landlords, (The one that always stands out for me was the one in Manchester that got broken into twice – the landlord for that one was a commercial entity, and totally useless) but I’ve never felt the need to make a big thing of it, let alone take anyone to court or ombudsmen, and I’m sure my brother’s the same.
All told it makes me just think that the person is a nightmare rather than the houses/landlords.
Because of the situation she’s currently in, I did think about acting as a referee for her – not a guarantor by any stretch, but just a referee – and then thought about the rest of it, the fact that whatever I did would come back and almost certainly bite me on the arse, that wherever she goes next will also be “a nightmare”, and you know what? I just don’t need that much hassle in my life.
More cynically, I figure that a lot of it is about reaping what she’s sown, but that’s not my problem, and it’s not my place to help those who won’t help themselves.
Not Quite An Apology
Posted: Thu 3 October, 2013 Filed under: 1BEM, Cynicism, Literacy, People, Sweary, Thoughts, Words 2 Comments »One of the phrases that keeps on annoying me at the moment is the current ‘approved’ terminology for an apology
We’d like to apologise for [x]
Why does it annoy me? Because if you look at it, it’s not actually an apology. It’s a mealy-mouthed excuse. “We’d like to apologise for [x]” isn’t the same as “We are really sorry about [x]”
I know it’s probably only me that even notices this kind of thing, but regardless, it’s an annoyance.
If you’re sorry for something, say you’re sorry. Apologise. Don’t tell me that you’d like to apologise – because that’s not actually apologising. It might as well say “We’d like to apologise, but won’t, because well, fuck you”
Just say “Sorry”. Don’t wank around the bushes with it. Say you screwed up, apologise, move on.